Workforce Highlights

Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Assumptions

Chapter 29, Section 6
states that “The operating budget shall indicate the number of positions
proposed to be authorized for each state agency or such other public
instrumentality for the ensuing fiscal year, the number of positions for each
state agency in the current and ensuing fiscal years and such other information
as may be held to explain the anticipated results of the proposed
expenditures”.

To address this requirement,
the House 1 recommendation includes employee counts summarized at the
Government area level. Additional detail is included throughout the Budget
Recommendations to indicate the employee level within specific departments.

Effect of the Budget on Personnel to Date

Reduction in Workforce

Since the fall of 2008 the Administration has provided
strict FTE caps to the Executive Branch Departments, prioritizing hiring in
areas where positions are critical for public health and safety or where a
position results in additional revenue or cost savings for the Commonwealth. FTE
caps are implemented at the department level and reviewed regularly by ANF budget
analysts to ensure agencies are taking the necessary steps to live within
capped levels.

FTE caps are meant to be consistent with amounts allocated
for FTE spending. If an agency does not project that enough funding is
available to maintain an FTE level, a “reduction in force” plan must be
submitted to the Human Resources Division within ANF. These plans are reviewed
for their impact on public health and safety or other impact on service levels
provided to the Commonwealth’s residents. Agencies are asked to ensure that
everything that possible is done to avoid a meaningful impact on users of state
services as a result of layoffs.

Between the fall of 2008 and December 2010, the state
workforce for jobs in the Executive Branch funded with operating dollars has
declined by 3,350 jobs. The reduction can be attributed to layoffs, attrition
and retirement across all agencies in the Executive Branch. Furthermore, after
accounting for an increase of 2,700 positions in January 2010 corresponding to
transition of seven county sheriffs’ offices to state agencies, Non-Executive
Branch (Judiciary, Legislature, Sheriffs, Higher Education) agencies have seen
a decline of roughly 2,500 positions.

EXECUTIVE BUDGETARY JOBS

Measure

Pay Period

Jobs

BENCHMARK *

01/20/07

37,473

BENCHMARK *

10/11/08

38,285

PREVIOUS PAY PERIOD

01/01/11

34,935

CURRENT PAY PERIOD

01/15/11

34,930

VARIANCES VS. CURRENT

YTD VARIANCE FROM *

01/20/07

(2,543)

YTD VARIANCE FROM *

10/11/08

(3,355)

PREVIOUS VS. CURRENT

(5)

BENCHMARK VS. CURRENT *

10/11/08

38,285

01/15/11

34,930

Variance:

(3,355)

* 1269 jobs adjusted for MassDOT reform as of 11/01/2009

H.1 Employment Levels

In reviewing the funding levels available to them for 2012, agencies
must critically evaluate their employee level and determine further reductions are
necessary to maintain a balanced budget. The fiscal year 2012 H.1
recommendation estimates 66,242 FTEs. This amount includes FTEs from both
Executive and Non-Executive departments as well as positions funded from the
operating accounts listed within the budget.

State Budgeted FTEs, Executive and Non-Executiveby Fiscal Year

FY2011

FY2012

Variance

Executive Branch

Administration and Finance

2,740

2,752

12

Education

521

519

(2)

Energy & Environmental Affairs

1,991

1,821

(170)

Health and Human Services

19,644

19,477

(167)

Housing & Economic Development

728

731

3

Labor & Workforce Development

311

311

-

Public Safety

8,433

9,669

1,236

Transportation

-

-

-

Executive Total

34,368

35,280

912

Executive Adjusted Total *

34,368

34,045

912

Non-Executive

Independents

3,671

3,586

(85)

Sheriffs

5,933

5,627

(306)

Higher Education Campuses

13,683

13,683

-

Judiciary **

7,058

7,133

75

Legislature

960

933

(27)

Non-Executive Total

31,305

30,962

(343)

Non-Executive Adjusted Total *

31,305

30,660

(645)

GRAND TOTAL

65,673.0

66,242.0

569.0

Adjusted Grand Total

65,673.0

64,705.0

(968.0)

* H.1 proposes to
re-organize the Department of Community
Supervision (formerly Commissioner or Probabtion
and Community Corrections) from the Judiciary to
the Executive Office of Public Safety.
** H.1 proposes to increase the fiscal year 2012
FTEs by as many as 1,537 new staff attorneys and
other support positions at the newly created
Department of Public Counsel Services. For
comparison purposes these FTEs are eliminated from
the FY2012 Non-Executive Adjusted Total

The fiscal year 2012 projected budgeted FTEs reflects the
Governor’s proposal to transform the cost-ineffective manner in which the state
currently provided constitutionally-required legal services to indigent
criminal defendants. The Governor proposes to shift from a system that relies
almost entirely on expensive private attorneys that bill for hourly services to
a system that is staffed entirely by salaried state employees. The new system
will require adding up to an additional 1,537 attorneys, investigators and
state support positions (as reflected in the budgetary FTE amount of 66,242)
but will generate approximately $46 million in savings from fiscal year 2011.
Total budgeted FTEs are projected to increase by 569 positions in fiscal year
2012, but absent of this change they would be reduced by roughly 970 positions
to 64,705 FTEs. This compares to current budgeted FTE levels of up to 65,673 in
fiscal year 2011.

Workforce Planning Goals

As discussed earlier, the Executive Office for
Administration and Finance (ANF) and the Human Resources Division have worked
together to implement clear policies surrounding employees. Each fall, ANF
engages each agency in a spending plan process in which each account is
evaluated to determine how funds will be spent for the current fiscal year.
This requires a detailed description of employees for the current year -
including those currently on staff, positions that are open and intended to be
filled and new positions for which funding is available. The goals of the
employee caps that have been in place since fiscal year 2009, at the start of
the fiscal crisis, and the subsequent review of all employee spending are to:

Restrain Growth in State Employee Levels - Since payroll is a
large portion of many agency expenditures, and reductions in force can take so
long that savings cannot be realized in a fiscal year, caps are needed to
manage hiring within available funding levels. Although some hiring may have
small costs for the current year, the full year value of new staff have budget
impacts that must be considered.

Mitigate Shifts to Other Funding Sources – Employees come onto
the state payroll several ways including the operating budget (FTEs and
contractors), the capital budget, federal grants and trusts. All sources are
carefully reviewed to ensure we are maintaining compliance with employment laws
and also to ensure that we are not using one time sources to pay for ongoing costs.

Manage Overtime Costs – Although hiring restrictions are
important, overtime costs must be considered to ensure that proper staffing
levels are maintained for public health and safety where responsibilities are
24 hours / 7 days per week. Oftentimes, the savings of FTE restrictions are
simply shifted to higher overtime. Therefore, prudent management of both
overtime and staffing levels must be evaluated.

During fiscal year 2011 FTE caps have continued to be in
place in order to continue to manage the state workforce. For the Executive
Branch, head count will be managed for all funding sources but specifically for
the operating budget funds recommended in the H.1 recommendation.

Key initiatives Impacting the State Workforce

MassDOT Reform

In June 2009, Governor Patrick signed Chapter 25 of the Acts
of 2009 creating the new, streamlined Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT). MassDOT represents a merger of the former Executive
Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOT) with the Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority (MTA), the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD), the Registry of
Motor Vehicles (RMV), the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC) and the Tobin Bridge. The new organization also assumed responsibility for many of the bridges and
parkways formerly operated by the Department of Conservation and Recreation
(DCR). Implementing the reform act has lead to changes in the classification
of transportation FTEs, namely the transition of the 1,200 former EOT and DCR
budgetary FTEs to an off budget trust fund.

Sheriffs

A year ago, Governor Patrick proposed the alignment of all
14 Massachusetts State and County Sheriffs under the state budgeting and
finance laws. The Legislature approved the Governor’s proposal through passage
of the sheriff transfer legislation, Chapter 102 of the Acts of 2009, which was
approved by the Governor on August 6, 2009. This act transferred the remaining
7 county sheriff departments to the Commonwealth effective January 1, 2010.
Since then, sheriff departments have successfully transitioned onto the state
budgeting and accounting system and all sheriff employees have been placed on
state payroll, increasing the state FTE count by approximately 2,750 employees.
However, this does not represent a parallel increase in state spending as
sheriff operations prior to the transfer were predominantly funded by the
Commonwealth. Additionally, deeds excise revenue previously funding sheriff
operations will now be remitted to the Commonwealth.

Information Technology Realignments

Because of an initiative to transfer all information
technology employees to secretariats, those employees that have routinely been funded
from off-budget sources are being transferred into Intragovernmental Service
Fund accounts where they will report to staff at the secretariat-level, but
continue to be paid from the off-budget sources. This represents an “increase”
of nearly 300 FTEs on the overall totals.

Contractor / Capital Conversions

Given the cost associated with paying for employees from
capital funds and the renewed focus on wage enforcement efforts, every effort
continues to be made to convert contract employees to full-time equivalents,
and to transfer employees onto the operating budget. Along with conversions that
have already been made, H.1 includes an outside section that allows for certain
capital and operating costs to be exchanged so that appropriate operating
dollars spent on capital needs can be shifted to the capital budget and vice
versa. This section will have an impact on our budgeted employee level but it
should be noted that these are not new state employees, they are just new to
the operating budget.

Other Considerations

Like all departments, the non-executive branch agencies will
be working to evaluate impacts on employees. Additionally, because funding at
the Higher Education campuses comes from various sources, some employee impacts
may be mitigated. Additionally, certain FTE increases due to compliance with
legal settlements and to address needs around public health and safety must be
considered.